By BAR executive editor Glen Ford

“People no longer believe the fake “news” and bogus narratives issued by the ruling class and its corporate and military misinformation specialists.”

President Obama traveled to Berlin last week to browbeat Europeans on why they should continue to play junior partners in Washington’s quest for full spectrum global domination, but kept returning to his post-election obsession: the existential threat posed by “fake news” on social media. It was as if the realization had just dawned on the lame duck president, that his own powers to create “facts” and manufacture “news” out of thin air would soon be gone. Without the Clintons in the White House to continue the neoliberal project, history might conclude that the First Black President’s only enduring legacy was…that he was the first Black president.

“Now, Barack, this is the way you do it…”

It’s a question of who gets to decide what’s “fake” or not. Obama fears that what he calls “fake” news begets fake history, which begets the fall of western civilization as the rulers would like people to imagine it. Fake news is a grave danger “in an age where there’s so much active misinformation and its packaged very well and it looks the same when you see it on a Facebook page or you turn on your television,” according to Obama [3]. “If everything seems to be the same and no distinctions are made, then we won’t know what to protect,” he told the Germans.

It was a magic kind of moment. The legendarily cool and collected Obama had just let out the secret: the ruling class, which he so faithfully serves, has lost control of the social and political narrative, without which it cannot “protect” its wealth, privilege and power.

“When the people come to believe that the president’s narrative is a bunch of ‘propaganda,’ then future Obamas will no longer be able to protect the Lords of Capital from the pitchforkers.”

Was the world’s most powerful individual (until January 20) in despair over Facebook’s failure to erase three or four fictitious, yet ultimately inconsequential, stories from its pages? Of course not. Obama’s problem — and capitalism’s crisis– is that people no longer believe the fake “news” and bogus narratives issued by the ruling class and its corporate and military misinformation specialists. “If we are not serious about facts and what’s true and what’s not, and particularly in an age of social media when so many people are getting their information in sound bites and off their phones, if we can’t discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems,” said Obama.

This is the man that told the nation’s assembled bankers, a year after the Greet Meltdown of 2008, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” When the people come to believe that the president and the corporate media’s narrative — that the system can be fixed with a little tinkering — is a bunch of “propaganda,” rather than “serious argument,” then future Obamas will no longer be able to protect the Lords of Capital from the pitchforkers.

Losing control of the narrative is what happened after Michael Brown’s murder in Ferguson, Missouri, when Black youth stopped listening to Obama’s fictitious sermon that racism is not endemic in America, a fake history that candidate Obama had successfully dispensed in his “A More Perfect Union” speech in Philadelphia, in 2008.

Obama’s targeted handful of phony social media articles generally favored Donald Trump. But the biggest “fake news” of the recent campaign, promulgated by virtually the entirety of the ruling class ensconced in Hillary Clinton’s Supersized Tent, was that the Russians were scheming to despoil and disrupt the U.S. elections — crimes Americans commit all by themselves every cycle through massive voter purges and other racist conspiracies. To Clinton and Obama’s horror, this McCarthyite deluge of fake anti-Russian news failed to sway the very “Middle Americans” that were thought to be the most belligerent, warlike constituency of all.

“The root of the crisis of credibility, which is really a systemic crisis of legitimacy, lies in the inability of late stage capitalism to offer anything that will stem the steady decline in the mass of people’s living standards and economic security.”

The Big Tent — Wall Street, the national security establishment, and their media – have lost all credibility with the public, and Obama was still shaken by the realization when he traveled to Berlin. Donald Trump and his crowd’s credibility – their ability to weave a believable narrative – was nonexistent from the start among half the country, and will shrink even more over time.

The root of the crisis of credibility, which is really a systemic crisis of legitimacy, lies in the inability of late stage capitalism to offer anything that will stem the steady decline in the mass of people’s living standards and economic security. So deep is the decay, every amelioration of public pain would require the dismantling of capitalist structures of power, which is unacceptable to the rulers.

On the most basic level, the U.S. does not have universal health care because capital has entrenched itself in all aspects of health care delivery. The rulers cannot provide affordable housing because Wall Street has financialized the nation’s land and dwellings. Good jobs at living wages are impossible, as long as corporations are empowered to maintain their carefully crafted international supply chain for manufactured goods – the foundation of corporate globalization. Black America cannot break free of the Mass Black Incarceration State until Black people eject the police, as presently constituted, from their communities, which will also require ejecting the corporate collaborators of the Black Misleadership Class from positions of power. There can be no peace — and no peace “dividend” for Americans – while predatory corporations and cartels dictate U.S. foreign policy. The cycle of decline and repression will continue until corporate power is broken and the banks are nationalized.

The rulers offer nothing, because the system is no longer capable of providing relief to the working and “superfluous” classes (that means most Black folks). They can only spin tales of fantasy and distraction – fake stories and phony narratives.

American “Exceptionalism” is “Manifest Destiny” with Native American genocide and Black slavery blotted out. It is the falsest narrative of all, tailored for imperial conquest and an “end of history” — meaning, the end of everyone’s narrative except the imperialist.  

NOTES
Source URL: http://blackagendareport.com/obama_false_narratives_fake_news

Links

[1] http://blackagendareport.com/obama_false_narratives_fake_news

[2] http://blackagendareport.com/category/political-economy/capitalism

[3] http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/18/world/europe/obama-angela-merkel-donald-trump.html?_r=0

[4] mailto:Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

What will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

OPEDS | JAMES PETRAS

Both the Right and Left have failed to grasp the contradiction that defines US political life: Namely, the profound gap between the American public and the Washington elite on questions of war and peace within an electoral process that consistently leads to more militarism.

This is an analysis of the most recent US public opinion polls with regard to outcome of the recent elections. The essay concludes with a discussion of the deep-seated contradictions and proposes several ways in which these contradictions can be resolved.

Method

A major survey of public opinion, sponsored by the Charles Koch Institute and the Center for the National Interest, conducted by the Survey Sampling International, interviewed a sample of one thousand respondents.

The Results: War or Peace

More than half of the American public oppose any increase is the US military role overseas while only 25% back military expansion.

The public has expressed its disillusionment over Obama’s foreign policy, especially his new military commitments in the Middle East, which have been heavily promoted by the state of Israel and its US domestic Zionist lobby.

The US public shows a deep historical memory with regard to the past military debacles launched by Presidents Bush and Obama. Over half of the public (51%) believe that the US has become less safe over the past 15 years (2001-2015), while one eighth (13%) feel they are more secure.

In the present period, over half of the public opposes the deployment of ground troops to Syria and Yemen and only 10% favor continued US support for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

With regard to specific US wars, over half believe that Bush’s invasion of Iraq made the US homeland less secure, while only 25% believe it didn’t increase or decrease domestic security. Similar responses were expressed with regard to Afghanistan: 42% believe the Afghan War increased insecurity and about a third (34%) felt it did not affect US security.

In terms of future perspectives, three quarters (75%) of the American public want the next President to focus less on the US military operations abroad or are uncertain about its role. Only 37% are in favor of increased spending for the military.

The mass media and the powerful financial backers of the Democratic Presidential candidate have focused on demonizing Russia and China as ‘the greatest threats in our time’. In contrast, almost two thirds (63.4%) of Americans believe the greatest threat comes from terrorism both foreign and domestic. Only 18% view Russia and China as major threats to their security.

In regard to the Pentagon, 56% want to reduce or freeze current military spending while only 37% want to increase it.

Wars and Peace: The Political Elites

Contrary to the views of a majority of the public, the last four US Presidents, since the 1990’s, have increased the military budget, sending hundreds of thousands of US troops to launch wars in three Middle Eastern countries, while promoting bloody civil wars in three North African and two European countries. Despite public opinion majorities, who believe that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have increased threats to the US security, Obama kept ground troops, air and sea forces and drone operations in those countries. Despite only 10% public approval for his military policies, the Obama regime has sent arms, advisors and Special Forces to support the Saudi dictatorship’s invasion of tiny Yemen.

Obama and the Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton pushed a policy of encircling Russia and demonizing its President Putin as the greatest threat to the US in contrast to US opinion, which considers the threat of Islamist terrorism as five times more serious.

The mass media and the powerful financial backers of the Democratic Presidential candidate have focused on demonizing Russia and China as ‘the greatest threats in our time’. In contrast, almost two thirds (63.4%) of Americans believe the greatest threat comes from terrorism both foreign and domestic. Only 18% view Russia and China as major threats to their security.

While the political elite and the leading Presidential candidates promise to expand the number of US troops abroad and increase military spending, over three quarters of the American public oppose or are uncertain about expanding US militarism.

While candidate Clinton campaigned for the deployment of the US Air Force jets and missiles to police a ‘no fly zone’ in Syria, even shooting down Syrian and Russian government planes, the majority of US public opposed it by 51%.

In terms of constitutional law, fully four-fifths (80%) of the US public believes the President must secure Congressional approval for additional military action abroad. Nevertheless, Presidents from both parties, Bush and Obama launched wars without Congressional approval, creating a precedent which the next president is likely to exploit.

Analysis and Perspectives

[dropcap]O[/dropcap]n all major foreign policy issues related to waging war abroad, the political elite is far more bellicose than the US public; they are far more likely to ignite wars that ultimately threaten domestic security; they are more likely to violate the Constitutional provisions on the declaration of war; and they are committed to increasing military spending even at the risk of defunding vital domestic social programs. [Actually they do that routinely and programmatically, a reflection of their class priorities.—Editor)

The political elites are more likely to intervene in wars in the Middle East, without domestic support and even in spite of majoritarian popular opposition to war. No doubt the executives of the oligarchical military-industrial complex, the pro-Israel power configuration and the mass media moguls are far more influential than the pro-democracy public.

The future portends a continuation of militarism by the political elites, and increase in domestic security threats and even less public representation.

Some Hypothesis on the Contradiction between Popular Opinion and Electoral Outcomes

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]here is clearly a substantial gap between the majority of Americans and the political elite regarding the role of the military in overseas wars, the undermining of constitutional prerogatives, the demonization of Russia, the deployment of US troops to Syria and deeper US entanglement in Middle East wars for the benefit of Israel.

Yet it is also a fact that the US electorate continue to vote for the two major political parties which have consistently supported wars, formed military alliances with warring Middle East states, especially Saudi Arabia and Israel and aggressively sanctioned Russia as the main threat to US security.

Several hypotheses regarding this contradiction should be considered:

2. The fact that the mass media vehemently supports one or the other of the two war parties probably influences a minority of the electorate who decide to actually participate in the elections. However, critics have exaggerated the mass media’s influence and fail to explain why the majority of the American public disagree with the mass media and oppose the militarist propaganda.

3. Many Americans, while opposed to militarism, vote for the ‘lesser evil’ between the two war parties. They may believe that there are greater and lesser ‘degrees’ of war mongering and choose the less strident.

4. Americans, who consistently oppose militarism, may decide to vote for militarist politicians for reasons besides those of overseas wars. For example, majoritarian Americans may support a militarist politician who has secured funding for local infrastructure programs, or protected farm and dairy subsidies, or who promises jobs programs, lowers public debt or opposes corrupt incumbents.

5. Americans, opposed to militarism, may be deceived by the pronouncements of a demagogic presidential candidate from one of the war parties, whose promise of peace will give way to escalating wars.

6. Likewise, the emphasis on ‘identity politics’ can deceive anti-war voters into supporting a proven militarist because of issues related to race, ethnicity, gender, sexual preferences or loyalties to overseas states.

7. The war parties work together to block mass media access for anti-militarist parties, especially preventing their participation in national electoral debates viewed by tens of millions of voters. War parties collude to set impossible restrictions against anti-militarist party participation in national level elections, banning citizens with non-violent police records or former convicts who have served their sentences from voting. They reject poor citizens who lack photo identification, limit access to transport to voting sites, limit the number of polling places in poor or minority neighborhoods and deny time-off for workers to vote. Unlike other countries, US elections are held on a work day and many workers are unable to vote.

In other words the electoral process is ‘rigged’ and imposes ‘forced voting’ and abstention: Collusion between the two war parties limits voter choice to abstention or casting a ballot for the ‘lesser evil’ among the militarists.

Only if elections were open and democratic, where anti-militarist parties were allowed equal rights to register, participate and debate in the mass media, and where campaign financing were made equal would the contradictions between the wishes of the anti-militarist majorities and votes cast for pro-war elites be resolved.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

James Petras (born c. 1930s) is a retired Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University in Binghamton, New York and adjunct professor at Saint Mary's University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada who has published on Latin American and Middle Eastern political issues.  Petras was a founding member of the Young Socialist Alliance and early articles by him appeared in the The Young Socialist in 1959 and 1960. He's listed as the Bay Area correspondent for the paper for several issues.^[6] He has a long history of commitment to social justice, through the decades Petras has worked directly with indigenous workers as an organizer, in particular with the Brazilian Landless Workers Movement and the unemployed workers' movement in Argentina. He has advised left-wing presidents like President Andreas Papandreou (Greece 1981-84),^[7] President Salvador Allende of Chile (1970–73) and in recent years, President Hugo Chávez, and defended the rights of the indigenous in Latin America. From 1973-76 Petras worked on the Bertrand Russell Tribunal on Repression in Latin America.^[1]

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience. 

What will it take to bring America to live according to its own propaganda?

=SUBSCRIBE TODAY! NOTHING TO LOSE, EVERYTHING TO GAIN.=
free • safe • invaluable
Please see our red registration box at the bottom of this page

[Graphic: Historical cartoon. From WCHS History online.]

=By= Joseph Waters

The first thing that comes to mind is a sense of déjà vu that we’ve all been through something remarkably similar to this before – like in 2008. Now we get to experience hope and change Republican-style. Eight years ago the liberals were euphoric while conservatives were fuming; now we have the reverse situation.

Myth #1: Trump isn’t really Republican – To which I reply: Did he run as a Republican? Yes? Then he’s a Republican. That was easy. Let’s move on.

Myth #2: Trump is anti-establishment – This shows an incredible degree of political ignorance. In the American mind, there is a “political class” and “media class” and a multitude of other communities, groups, special interests, genders, minorities, etc., etc., that are seen and treated as distinct, apart, and often at odds with one another. One group that is singled out for extraordinary persecution is the lowly businessman. You see, big government, those fat cat politicians and union bosses, enrich themselves at the expense of the humble businessman simply trying to make an honest buck to scrape by while providing for his children (and employees). The reality, of course, is that the big businessman (like Trump) and the big government politicos are old pals – they are even the same people. They are part of the same group, the same ruling class. In a similar way, in medieval times, if you took a superficial look at European feudal society you might conclude that there was an aristocratic class and an ecclesiastical class, when in reality they were part of a single ruling class; according to the feudal law of primogeniture, the first-born son would inherit the entire estate while the second sons would often enter the priesthood.

At any rate, Trump has been involved in politics before. He has funded and lobbied politicians and participated in propaganda and political operations; now he has just decided to become a politician for a short while. He has apparently flirted with the idea of running for president since the 80’s. Many capitalists do this and then go back to the so-called private sector; they may go back and forth because it can be boring just doing the same thing all the time. Regardless, the private businessman will engage in political activism through lobbying, running an NGO, and assisting the CIA in their covert operations (including espionage, propaganda, economic sanctions, assassination, coups, etc.) by providing funding, technical expertise and agent cover through their corporations. The point is: There is no wall dividing up the private and public sectors. All those ruling class members are in the same club, they play for the same team and they are cut from the same cloth. Even the playboys and jet-setters are expected to kick in once in a while and assist in ensuring that their class, the ruling class, remains the ruling class.

Myth #3: The system works. The people have spoken! – The power elite of the ruling class outflanked a lot of us with this caper. By appointing Trump president they were able to show the world that democracy and pluralism work. They were able to make a liar out of all of us, including Julian Assange of Wikileaks who proclaimed that “Trump would not be allowed to win.” I believe it is quite possible the power elite (through the CIA) decided it was wiser to let the under(funded)dog win since over 90% of elections are won by the candidate with the most money. Hillary raised over twice as much money as Trump did. The message is that big money cannot always have its way and the little guy is beginning to assert some control over the government. Just keep voting and everything will be fine. The system works. Our democracy is safe and sound. On the contrary, the vote very likely was rigged in favor of Donald Trump according to investigative journalist Greg Palast and professor Mark Crispin Miller, who has studied voter suppression and election fraud tactics. According to Dr. Miller, when the exit polls differ widely from the election outcome, this is not likely to be evidence of bad polling methods, but rather proof that the vote tallies were tampered with. My own feeling is that when it comes to a question between whether the elites and their agents are mistaken or incompetent or whether they are corrupt and duplicitous, I think that without compelling evidence to the contrary, it is safer to assume the latter possibility.

Unfortunately, in their analyses these two gentlemen seem to lean toward the ridiculous notion that the mean ol’ Republicans are stealing elections from the timid and perpetually bullied Democrats. The two parties may represent different factions in the capitalist one-party state, but they certainly seem to collude (especially toward the top) a lot more than they compete. For instance, how often have you heard a politico refer to his or her “friends across the aisle?” When they are no longer in front of the cameras, they go back to being quite chummy.

I speculate that the CIA is deeply embedded within the DNC and GOP and allows the two parties to vie for its affection and may tip the balance for one or the other if it has a clear preference. Actually, we should probably have seen this coming. For one thing, following the pattern of the last few decades, it is the Republican party’s turn to represent the capitalist ruling class in government. Also, as indicated earlier, a Trump “win” turned out to be the best mechanism for keeping the masses fired up and most starkly divided. If Hillary had won, then you would have outraged conservatives with a lukewarm, perhaps relatively content batch of liberals and everyone else. Due to the fixed outcome for Trump, again, you have euphoric conservatives and irate liberals; it’s a win-win!

Myth #4: The (liberal) media favored Hillary. – The teenage daughter that is the American people succumbed to reverse psychology and ran into the arms of the bad boy Donald Trump. Trump received over $5 billion in free advertising from the MSM during his campaign according to Lee Camp of Redacted Tonight (twice as much as Clinton). Trump got 23x as much coverage as Bernie Sanders, by the way. In fact, if you tally up the value of free advertising Trump received (remembering that there is no such thing as bad publicity – especially when it comes to Trump) the maxim remains true that the candidate with the most money wins!

Myth #5: Trump will end all the wars and imperialist aggression! – I see no evidence for this beyond Trump’s rhetoric. The important question to ask is why Trump and his supporters are against foreign wars. The why is very, very important in determining how likely it is that the US will turn away from its quest for global domination. The answer to the question “why” seems to be that the wars are “stupid” or “too expensive.” I for one do not find this to be reassuring; this is not a very moral, progressive or principled stance to take. All that is needed is another Gulf of Tonkin or 9/11 type provocation or false flag attack and, well, President Trump’s hands will be tied; he will have to act to defend America!

Having dealt with several Trump myths, I would like to make a few more observations. The conflation by the media of the far left with the far right and all manifestations of “extremism” has been with us for a long time, but now Trump has become the “pied piper” for all these folks. The ruling class strategists have painted these contrasting ideologies with the same wide brush. Once it was forbidden to speak of the working class because of the Marxist connotations of the term, but now the media propagandists are happy to talk about a white working class in the context of how reactionary they are claimed to be. Sadly, there is some truth to this because the white working class has been reared to be white supremacist; this is enormously helpful for purposes of divide and rule. The bourgeois ruling class would love to encourage and exacerbate this racial division.

Also, I think there is another dangerous and disturbing possibility that we must consider, and it is that the Trump rapprochement with Russia could be a CIA/ruling class ploy to drive a wedge between Russia and China – that powerful alliance is the greatest threat to their plans for global domination.

Finally, in a bizarre twist, many supposed leftists are proclaiming a victory for the people with this Trumpocalypse. This is a strange and dangerous development and has no basis in reality. I really hope I’m wrong and that Trump stops the wars and defies the ruling class in its quest for world domination, but I’m not at all optimistic about that eventuality. We need to keep asking questions, retain a healthy skepticism, apply a Marxist analysis to events and not get suckered by a massive CIA propaganda/psyop/political operation.

Joseph Waters is a highly respected political activist. He operates the blog, Proletarian Center for Research, Education and Culture (Prole Center).

Hillary with Donald and his oldest sons. Old friends?

Note to Commenters
Due to severe hacking attacks in the recent past that brought our site down for up to 11 days with considerable loss of circulation, we exercise extreme caution in the comments we publish, as the comment box has been one of the main arteries to inject malicious code. Because of that comments may not appear immediately, but rest assured that if you are a legitimate commenter your opinion will be published within 24 hours. If your comment fails to appear, and you wish to reach us directly, send us a mail at: editor@greanvillepost.com

We apologize for this inconvenience.

Nauseated by the
vile corporate media?
Had enough of their lies, escapism,
omissions and relentless manipulation?